Iain
to (verb) vs. for (verb +ing)
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
On the other hand, how would we analyze, should it come up in class sometime, "She gave him her underwear for washing." 
Would we say it's OK? Would we say, "Is may sound OK initially (owing to the -ing form, which looks like a gerund), but there really should be a noun (or noun substitute) after "for", so, "She gave him her underwear for the wash." would be preferable. Or, we could replace "for" with "to" in order to make, "She gave him her underwear to wash."
Are you guys with me here? What do you have to say about her underwear?
Larry Latham
Would we say it's OK? Would we say, "Is may sound OK initially (owing to the -ing form, which looks like a gerund), but there really should be a noun (or noun substitute) after "for", so, "She gave him her underwear for the wash." would be preferable. Or, we could replace "for" with "to" in order to make, "She gave him her underwear to wash."
Are you guys with me here? What do you have to say about her underwear?
Larry Latham
I realised that when I wrote my previous post (although I haven't played with X-bar since I graduated (too busy learning to teach)), but it doesn't help because there is still an obvious disjunct between "the washing his clothes" and "the washing of his clothes". Unless you mean the same as Larry - "washing his clothes" is not a noun phrase. If it isn't, and I'm not saying it is (any longer), then what is it?dduck wrote: a Noun Phrase is a specifier and an X-bar. An X-bar is a head word and any number of complements. Using substitution, a NP is a specifier, head word and any number of complements. Thus a NP plus complement is a NP.
Is it a noun phrase? ("Washing his clothes was becoming tedious.")
Is it an adjective? ("This washing-his-clothes nonsense has to stop!")
Is it a verb phrase? ("He is still washing his clothes.")
Is it an adverbial? ("Washing his clothes, he danced down the street and into his local pub for a swift half.")
I can't turn it into one of the traditionally closed wordclasses (determiner/preposition/pronoun etc), but, like a swearword, it can be almost anything you want it to be except an acceptable part of
"He went to the laundromat for washing his clothes" 
Larry - back to the underwear in moment
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Yes, yes, yes and yes.Is it a noun phrase? ("Washing his clothes was becoming tedious.")
Is it an adjective? ("This washing-his-clothes nonsense has to stop!")
Is it a verb phrase? ("He is still washing his clothes.")
Is it an adverbial? ("Washing his clothes, he danced down the street and into his local pub for a swift half.")
But I'm not so sure about
"He went to the laundromat for washing his clothes" Larry Latham
It's very annoying but I thought I read somewhere, someone said that words have no meaning. It's only when words are used together in a phrase that they begin to carry any significance.
Personally, I disagree with this idea. I think that words have loads of meaning, too many in fact. I think psychologists think of words as a means to trigger a multitude of ideas within the brain. Read the word "screw", what imagines come to mind. Psychologists use the information about the imagines produced to study what's happening within the mind of a person. Linguists come across this feature in writing when the talk about "garden path sentences". As we read sentences, numerous images, thoughts, ideas are being provoked, kicked, pushed down the stairs screaming. Sometimes we get it wrong, other times we're lead astray.
Incidently, it's also used lots in humour when we're lead up the garden path then suddenly pulled in another unexpected direction. For some reason, it makes us laugh.
Getting back to the point: words are pretty complex. If you want to categorize, or in other words understand HOW words are being used - that is their meaning - we need to study them in real conversations. Even then it's still not always possible to know exactly what they mean. Lateral thinking games are good ways of exposing the assumptions that we naturally make when conversing, e.g. "Bob enters a field and dies. Why?" We purposely leave out lots of important information, and let the answerer fill in the gaps, to their later frustration.
So, uncovering the meaning of words is pretty tricky, we are helped when we look at the bigger picture: the phrase, the sentence, the people speaking, the time period, etc.
In szwagier's example, we have lots of the necessary information already, so we can expect to give an answer with some confidence. On this point, I agree with Larry's analysis
Personally, I disagree with this idea. I think that words have loads of meaning, too many in fact. I think psychologists think of words as a means to trigger a multitude of ideas within the brain. Read the word "screw", what imagines come to mind. Psychologists use the information about the imagines produced to study what's happening within the mind of a person. Linguists come across this feature in writing when the talk about "garden path sentences". As we read sentences, numerous images, thoughts, ideas are being provoked, kicked, pushed down the stairs screaming. Sometimes we get it wrong, other times we're lead astray.
Incidently, it's also used lots in humour when we're lead up the garden path then suddenly pulled in another unexpected direction. For some reason, it makes us laugh.
Getting back to the point: words are pretty complex. If you want to categorize, or in other words understand HOW words are being used - that is their meaning - we need to study them in real conversations. Even then it's still not always possible to know exactly what they mean. Lateral thinking games are good ways of exposing the assumptions that we naturally make when conversing, e.g. "Bob enters a field and dies. Why?" We purposely leave out lots of important information, and let the answerer fill in the gaps, to their later frustration.
So, uncovering the meaning of words is pretty tricky, we are helped when we look at the bigger picture: the phrase, the sentence, the people speaking, the time period, etc.
In szwagier's example, we have lots of the necessary information already, so we can expect to give an answer with some confidence. On this point, I agree with Larry's analysis
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
I thought I read somewhere, someone said that words have no meaning. It's only when words are used together in a phrase that they begin to carry any significance.
Personally, I disagree with this idea. I think that words have loads of meaning, too many in fact. I think psychologists think of words as a means to trigger a multitude of ideas within the brain.
words are pretty complex. If you want to categorize, or in other words understand HOW words are being used - that is their meaning - we need to study them in real conversations. Even then it's still not always possible to know exactly what they mean.
Maybe you've come full circle, then, Iain. Whoever you read who said that words have no meaning by themselves perhaps meant that single words themselves may have too many meanings, and the only way to know what particular meaning a user has in mind is to consider them in combination with other words in a grammatical context...just as you have said above.So, uncovering the meaning of words is pretty tricky, we are helped when we look at the bigger picture: the phrase, the sentence, the people speaking, the time period, etc.
Larry Latham
Reason why
You can say quite correctly:
Here is a bucket of water (for the horse to drink) / (for washing his clothes)
*He went to the laundromat (for washing his clothes) grates on the nerves, feels wrong. Why?
I think the answer lies in something unseen, unsmelt, untouchable. They are called theta-roles. You can google theta roles, you'll find loads of info.
Verbs assign theta roles to their arguments. One argument, one theta role.
Is carries a maximum of two: agent, theme
bucket (agent) for washing his clothes (theme)
Went carries three: agent, goal, reason.
He (agent) went somewhere (goal) for something (reason)
All roles do not have to be filled.
He went to the laundromat.
But, if you write he went to the laundromat for (something), I ask:
Who went? He. (Agent)
He went where? To the laundromat. (goal)
Why? *Washing his clothes? Not a nice answer. To wash his clothes. Clear.
You will hear, in parts of England, people say: I'm going for to wash my clothes. Probably in America too, in country areas.
'for washing his clothes.' sounds wrong because it is a verbal use of the gerund. It already has an object his clothes. It craves a subject, but 'for' is a preposition, not a noun.
Verbal gerunds usually take a possessive as the subject. His washing his clothes was a surprise.
Theta roles may seem a strange idea. Have you ever thought about electrons? You will never see smell or hear one. They can only be described in terms of wave mechanics. Their position is uncertain. They are waves and particles. But very important to all life!
That said: gerunds are the single most contentious thing in linguistics. Any theory of language structure or syntax will have to account for them. They are clearly verbs, and equally clearly nouns! There is as far as I know to date no generally accepted account of their properties and how they fit into any theory of grammar. But we use them every day!
Here is a bucket of water (for the horse to drink) / (for washing his clothes)
*He went to the laundromat (for washing his clothes) grates on the nerves, feels wrong. Why?
I think the answer lies in something unseen, unsmelt, untouchable. They are called theta-roles. You can google theta roles, you'll find loads of info.
Verbs assign theta roles to their arguments. One argument, one theta role.
Is carries a maximum of two: agent, theme
bucket (agent) for washing his clothes (theme)
Went carries three: agent, goal, reason.
He (agent) went somewhere (goal) for something (reason)
All roles do not have to be filled.
He went to the laundromat.
But, if you write he went to the laundromat for (something), I ask:
Who went? He. (Agent)
He went where? To the laundromat. (goal)
Why? *Washing his clothes? Not a nice answer. To wash his clothes. Clear.
You will hear, in parts of England, people say: I'm going for to wash my clothes. Probably in America too, in country areas.
'for washing his clothes.' sounds wrong because it is a verbal use of the gerund. It already has an object his clothes. It craves a subject, but 'for' is a preposition, not a noun.
Verbal gerunds usually take a possessive as the subject. His washing his clothes was a surprise.
Theta roles may seem a strange idea. Have you ever thought about electrons? You will never see smell or hear one. They can only be described in terms of wave mechanics. Their position is uncertain. They are waves and particles. But very important to all life!
That said: gerunds are the single most contentious thing in linguistics. Any theory of language structure or syntax will have to account for them. They are clearly verbs, and equally clearly nouns! There is as far as I know to date no generally accepted account of their properties and how they fit into any theory of grammar. But we use them every day!
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Re: Reason why
I guess you have to look at the linguistic environment before declaring whether an "...ing" word is a verb or a gerund. Apparently they are verbs when they are doing 'verby' things in a phrase, or they are nouns when they do 'nouny' things. But then, isn't that exactly how we decide any word is whatever part of speech label we'd like to apply? Any suggestion that one can tell what part of speech any single word is, in isolation, is highly suspect, particularly as applies to verbs and/or nouns.Pedroski wrote:...gerunds are the single most contentious thing in linguistics. Any theory of language structure or syntax will have to account for them. They are clearly verbs, and equally clearly nouns! There is as far as I know to date no generally accepted account of their properties and how they fit into any theory of grammar. But we use them every day!
Larry Latham
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
Conceptual or Grammatical?
I get the feeling that it might be more conceptual than grammatical.
Compare the following (some examples borrowed from Szwagier):
(1) Go to the doctor for further help.
(2) Go to the bathroom for a wash.
(3) Go to the cinema for the storytelling.
(4) Go to the IRA for permission.
(5) Go to the republics for signing.
In all of the above examples the concept seems to be of obtaining or gaining something there. In each case, that 'thing' is offered by the other party.
(6) Go to the laundromat to wash your clothes.
(7) Go to the supermarket to buy some coke.
In these examples the concept is of going to that place in order to do something. In each case, it is the party who is going who is doing that thing.
(8) Go to the laundromat for washing your clothes.
In this case, 'washing your clothes' clearly indicates that you intend to do it yourself, but the 'for' indicates that the other party is doing it. The two concepts clash with each other resulting in an awkward sounding sentence.
(9) Go to the laundromat for the washing of your clothes.
This feels more accurate (acceptable to a native speaker, if still unlikely) precisely because the action is now more clearly in the hands of the other party.
Compare the following (some examples borrowed from Szwagier):
(1) Go to the doctor for further help.
(2) Go to the bathroom for a wash.
(3) Go to the cinema for the storytelling.
(4) Go to the IRA for permission.
(5) Go to the republics for signing.
In all of the above examples the concept seems to be of obtaining or gaining something there. In each case, that 'thing' is offered by the other party.
(6) Go to the laundromat to wash your clothes.
(7) Go to the supermarket to buy some coke.
In these examples the concept is of going to that place in order to do something. In each case, it is the party who is going who is doing that thing.
(8) Go to the laundromat for washing your clothes.
In this case, 'washing your clothes' clearly indicates that you intend to do it yourself, but the 'for' indicates that the other party is doing it. The two concepts clash with each other resulting in an awkward sounding sentence.
(9) Go to the laundromat for the washing of your clothes.
This feels more accurate (acceptable to a native speaker, if still unlikely) precisely because the action is now more clearly in the hands of the other party.